Saturday, December 13, 2008

WASHINGTON — Its largest city is legendary for machine-style politics and its elected leaders have been under investigation for years, but by one measure, Illinois is not even close to the nation's most-corrupt state.

North Dakota, it turns out, may hold that distinction instead.

Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday after a wiretap allegedly recorded him scheming to make money on his appointment to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich, a Democrat, ran for election in part on cleaning up after his predecessor, Republican George Ryan, who was convicted in 2006 of racketeering, bribery and extortion.

"If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Robert Grant, head of the FBI's Chicago office, said Tuesday.

On a per-capita basis, however, Illinois ranks 18th for the number of public corruption convictions the federal government has won from 1998 through 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Department of Justice statistics.

Louisiana, Alaska and North Dakota all fared worse than the Land of Lincoln in that analysis....

Some here and others across the blogosphere have mentioned that the clapping of Republicans for Senator Ted Stevens is morally wrong... otherwise why bring it up if Republicans weren’t violating their “family values” clause in the party platform?I will embed the actual speech Ted Stevens gave that caused everyone in Congress, yes, everyone, to clap.Even ex-recruiter/Grand Wizard for the Klu Klux Clan (e.g., Democrat), Senator Byrd, clapped.If anyone takes the time to listen to the ten-minute speech given by Senator Stevens they will know why everyone in Congress clapped.(Subject/Object Distinction Kimba.)

Now, a bit of redux here: Mark Foley.Representative Mark Foley was chased out of his position by fellow Republicans when it came to light that he sent salacious e-mails to a same-sex page who was goading him on (and admitted such) about their proposed homosexual meeting.At the time this page was eighteen years old.A separate case was where Foley asked via a letter what a particular page would like for Christmas and sent this same page the present.This page was sixteen at the time.The press and blogosphere mixed up these two cases in a blurred attack on this person -- really, because he was a Republican.

I would suspect (like most homosexual men) that Mark Foley was trying to have a homosexual “fling” set up with this “under-age” boy (sixteen years old which is under-age in most states... but NOT in Washington D.C.).Most homosexual men I have talked to had their first encounter (really rape), what is commonly referred to in the homosexual community as their “initiation,” when they were very young by a grown homosexual man.So even if there was a fling, under the laws of D.C., everything would have been legit.The Republican washed him out because of a stand (religiously and naturally -- Natural Law) taken against the age and acts involved.To re-post something I and Dennis Prager said:

So when a Democrat says because Sen. Craig was looking for homosexual sex and this makes him a hypocrite because he supported the “Family Values” position of not supporting the “gay agenda” in their goal of same-sex marriage, here is a great set of propositions and questions to ask "said Democrat."

So you know, I believe that Sen. Craig was trying to commit an immoral act and that he should resign because he should want what’s best for America and not for himself mainly because he cannot be trusted in his personal life, therefore he cannot be trusted in his political life… this aside, what makes him a hypocrite?

What do you do with the many people who are homosexual but have come out publicly stating that we should not change the definition of marriage? Are they hypocrites? If you have same-sex sex, does this mean you have to support the “gay-agenda?”

If a heterosexual supports the “gay-agenda,” does this mean he or she is a hypocrite? Does a heterosexual who supports the “heterosexual-agenda” make him a “homo-phobe?” I know a few Republican homosexuals who do not want the definition of marriage changed, does this make them “homo-phobes?” Or does it make them hypocrites?

Great points to ponder. Prager also points out that the dictionary definition of what a hypocrite is does not fit what we really experience in day-to-day life.

The point here is that really when Foley, Criag and others are mentioned, what the Democrats are really saying is this:

The Republicans are a Party that state a “family values” position that stands against such acts... they are not living up to those standards, whether religious or Natural!

Which most people like myself would agree and want more reference to the Founders understanding of morality and Natural law referenced in the terms served by Republicans.But what the Democrat is also saying is this:

The Democrat Party invites all who want to act this way and have affairs with pages -- whether same-sex or otherwise -- legally in D.C. under our umbrella because we reject Natural Law’s stance on gender barriers and definitely take a more “progressive” stance on what Jesus and the apostles taught as well as the Old Testament prophets.

In other words, if acted out there is nothing of “family values” in the tent of liberalism to counter such actions... we (Liberals/Democrats) like to point out when the Right fails in this activity.In fact, we give standing ovations to those who practice such acts... alone... without Republicans joining in with applause, like IBD so aptly pointed out with Gerry Studds:

...It was loyalty to that extreme agenda that accounts for Democrats holding back their ire during a far worse underage homosexual scandal: that of Gerry Studds, a Democratic Massachusetts congressman, for more than two decades.

According to the 1983 House ethics committee report, one congressional page allegedly traveled to Europe with Studds and testified that he took him to his apartment in Georgetown three or four times and that there was sexual activity between them each time. The two later took a 2 1/2-week trip together out of the country, according to the page, and "engaged in sexual activity every two or three days."

According to the ethics panel's report, "the relationship may have begun when the page was 16. . . . At that time, Rep. Studds was 36 years old." What's more, the underage page had told Studds that he would have preferred not to engage in sexual activity with him. "I mentioned that to him," the former page testified.

The report added that "two other former pages, both male," stated under oath that Studds made sexual advances to them. "One was 16 or 17" at the time of the alleged incident, "the other was 17."

Studds never apologized, and when he was censured by his colleagues, he defiantly stood in the House well looking up at Speaker Tip O'Neill, hands casually folded behind his back. Afterward, Studds not only remained in Congress for more than a decade; the House Democratic leadership allowed him to rise in the congressional ranks and for years hold a full committee chairmanship.

Some of Studds' Democratic colleagues even voted against the slap on the wrist of censure. Then-Rep. Parren Mitchell of Maryland, for instance, complained of the "absolute humiliation and degradation" Studds had already suffered and said censure would "cannibalize him."

When Studds returned home to his district, an August 1983 editorial — in the liberal Washington Post of all places — asked with astonishment, "What is it exactly, or even inexactly, that those Massachusetts Democrats were so loudly cheering when they gave Rep. Gerry Studds three standing ovations last weekend? What accounts for this extraordinary response to a man just censured for having taken sexual advantage of a youthful congressional page?"

Why were Democrats cheering? Maybe the answer lies in the causes they support and the ideological company they keep.

The American Civil Liberties Union, after all, gives a 90% rating to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who would be speaker of the House next year if the Democrats take control, and the ACLU Foundation has contributed to her campaign. That's the same ACLU that defends the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and has tried to bankrupt the Boy Scouts because of its resistance to the idea that male homosexuals should be able to be scoutmasters.

The congressional GOP leadership has clearly dropped the ball in the Foley case. They didn't recognize what Foley was, and the adolescents under Congress' care were subjected to the advances of a sexual predator as a result. That's inexcusable. But it's the Democrats who want our culture transformed so that people like Foley can feel good about themselves.

I hope this helps some here and others who come across this blog some deeper understanding of the differences here and some fodder for my fellow conservatives.

This story does have connections, by-the-by, with another story that makes a point of media bias. This connection is not explicit, but implicit:

CHICAGO – Businessmen with ties to both Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson discussed raising $1 million for Blagojevich to help persuade him to appoint Jackson to President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, according to a published report.

Citing unnamed sources, the Chicago Tribune reports in a story for Friday's editions that businessman Raghuveer Nayak and Blagojevich aide Rajinder Bedi told attendees at an Oct. 31 meeting that they needed to raise the money for the governor to ensure Jackson's appointment.

"Raghu said he needed to raise a million for Rod to make sure Jesse got the seat," an unidentified source who attended the meeting told the Tribune. Blagojevich also attended the meeting, which was sponsored by Nayak, an Oak Brook businessman.

Could Rahm Emanuel be next? And after Emanuel??

It is so bad that many on the Left even are facing the possibility of close contact to Obama and the scandal ridden Chicago area.It has driven Rachel Maddow of MSNBC fame to comment that Obama may still be implicated in this as well as Liberal talk show host Ed Schultz to comment (from NewsBusters):

Schultz hammered away at this on Wednesday's show, focusing on what could be Obama's Achilles' heel in the affair, senior adviser David Axelrod's statement on Nov. 23 that Obama and Blagojevich had spoken about the vacancy (after the scandal broke, Axelrod claimed he "misspoke").

After playing a clip of Axelrod's statement on Nov. 23, Schultz had this to say (audio) --

Well, OK, how can any fair-minded American say, well, that's OK, we're done with that angle of the story. Wait a minute. This is a clear, admitted discrepancy and it makes people wonder what the hell's going on here.

Schultz continued in the same vein in taking calls from listeners, including this response from a caller who praised him for his skepticism (audio) --

Well, look, I think you have to be living underneath a rock not to admit that there are some discrepancies here. There isn't anybody closer to Barack Obama than Axelrod. Axelrod says one thing and then he puts out a statement after the fact saying something else. How can any fair-minded American say, Hey! That's just a mistake. OK, if you want to accept that, that's fine, but I think in fairness we need to point that out. The second thing is, we need to point out, that whether you love Barack Obama or not or whatever, he gave us some Bush-speak yesterday, OK? He has not called for the resignation of the governor but other people have. People are looking to Barack Obama right now, looking for some leadership on this. And to say that he's had no contact? Now, I'm going to take this even a step further, Al (caller). Let me paint this picture. You have two people from the same party, one's a governor, one just got elected to the presidency of the United States. There is a vacancy. How rare would it be for those two not to have any conversation, any contact whatsoever about who's going to go into that vacant Senate seat? I'm just asking the question. How rare is that?

Axelrod needs to do more than just put out a statement. I want to see him. I want to hear him. I want to make sure that he made a mistake. Because this soundbite is rather convincing to me in its face value (Axelrod statement played again, followed by Schultz announcing news that Obama is calling on Blagojevich to resign and saying, "Good call, Barack").

Schultz's skepticism was mirrored later on Wednesday when he spoke with ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper, to the point that Schultz's earlier comments could easily have been mistaken as queries from a seasoned and professional journalist.

What's frustrating is, you know, if you read the criminal complaint against Gov. Blagojevich, there's nothing in here implying that President-elect Obama did anything wrong. In fact, you know, his team comes across as ones who are, as a team that is refusing to pay to play, refusing to give Gov. Blagojevich anything in exchange for naming their preferred candidate to the US Senate. But I don't really quite understand yet why it's taking so long to get answers to what seem to be fairly legitimate and logical questions about why so many members of the Obama inner circle are mentioned in this complaint ...

It would be unusual if nobody on the Obama team talked to anybody on the governor's team at all. Obviously there was a Senate seat to fill and Obama and Blagojevich have known each other for a few years, have some alliances, have some common friends, perhaps most especially Rahm Emanuel, so it would be normal for them to talk. So what did they talk about, was there anything, you know, why was Blagojevich so assured that nobody on the Obama team would give him anything in exchange for naming Valerie Jarrett to the Senate seat? These aren't accusatory questions, these are questions to fill in some of the blanks.

At any rate, some in the media do not think this is a big story, and need tape to keep there eyes open!

There is one thing missing from this all though... and that is... the queen of anti-corruption... she’s been silent!